Manuscript: Faustina B. IX

Previous Folio 52v Next Folio
P’ de Vineis
lib. 1 cap. 3subiecta///validus\[*]fuimus
[F]edericus Dei gracia, Romanorum imperator semper Augustus Iherusalem ⁊ Scicilie rex
prelatis ecclesiarum, comitibus, baronibus, nobilibus ⁊ uniuersis per regnum Anglie constitutis
quibus presentes littere ostense fuerint salutem ⁊ omne bonum. Etsi cause nostre iusticiam wlgaris
fame preloquium ⁊ regiorum ueridica testimonia nunciorum ad uniuersitatis uestre noticiam per
duxisse credimus quia tamen Segnius irritant animos dimissa per aures quam que sunt oculis di
ostensa1 fidelibus, ipsam puram ⁊ nudam ueritatem processus quem contra nos summi pontifices hactenus
habuerunt uestro conspectui presentamus. Ad inspeccionem plenariam ⁊ atentam de tot temporibus
⁊ diebus nostris negociis deputatis unum sufficiens tempus ⁊ diem nobis affectio uestra concedat
quo si licuerit diligenter atento2 consilia uestra recte considerent, si sit in pontificibus nostris pon
tificalis rectitudinis zelus. Si nobis tot ⁊ tantis iniuriis lacessitis, iusta debuerit an
debeat defensio denegari. Si demum Christi uicarii Christi uices inpleuerint si predecessoris, Petri
successores eius imitentur exemplum. Considerent etiam quo iure censeri debeat /\huius processus contra nos
habitus, uel quo nomine nunccupari si dici sentencia debeat quam iudex incompetens promulgauit
Nam ⁊ si nos nostre catholice fidei suggerente debito manifestissime fateamur
a Domino collatam sacrosancte Romane sedis antistiti plenariam in spiritualibus potestatem, quantulumcumque quod
absit sit ille peccator ut quod ligauerit in terra sit ligatum in celo ⁊ quod soluerit in terra sit in
celo solutum nunquam tamen diuina sibi uel humana lege legitur concessum quod transferre pro libito
possit imperia, aut de puniendis temporaliter in priuatione regnorum, regibus aut terre principibus
iudicare. Cum licet ad eum de iure ⁊ more maiorum consecracio nostra pertineat non tamen magis
ad ipsum quam priuacio seu remocio pertinebit, quam ad quoslibet regnorum prelatos, qui reges suos
ut assolet consecrant aut inungunt. Esto quod sine preiudicio nostro, quod habeat potestatem huius, est
ne istud de plenitudine potestatis ipsius quod nullo prossus ordine iuris seruato,3 animaduertere possit
in quoslibet quos asserit sue iurisdictioni subiectos? Processit enim contra nos nuper ut dicitur, non per accusacionis
ordinem, cum nec accusator apparuisset idoneus, nec inscripcio processisset nec per denunciationem
legitimo denunciatore cessante, nec per inquisicionis modum quem clamosa insinuacio non precessit.
Cum etiam nullorum inquisitorum nobis facta extiterit copia, si qua forsan ecclesia cum nulli fueri\n/t publice
per huius iudicem ad inquisicionem adducti. Asserit omnia fore notoria, que nos esse notoria manifeste
negamus ⁊ esse notoria4 per ligitimum5 testium numerum non probantur. Sic enim quilibet iudex posset per
se ipsum crimen asserendo notorium spreto iuris ordine quamlibet condempnare. Insurexerunt
in nos ut dicitur in concilio testes iniqui, sed ualde perpauci. Quorum unum, uidelicet Galiensis episcopum suis
fratre uidelicet ⁊ nepote, per nos ex causa prodicionis, ad suspendium legitime condempnatis offensa
rationabilis, nobis reddidit odiosum, ⁊ iuste propterea repellendum. Alios tanquam ex ultimis
Hispanie partibus prodeuntes, Terragonensem scilicet ⁊ Compostellanum antistites negocior6 Italie
natalis zone longinquitas inscios ⁊ eosdem uenenose subornacionis inductio, nostre iusticie
fecit esse infestos. Esto preterea quod legitimi fuerint, subsistentibus testibus auctor ⁊ iudex,
defuit tercius \reus/ qui uel presens uel contumaciter absens, secundum iusticiam debuit condempnari. Citati
namque in predicacione sua Lugduni sicut audiuimus licet informiter, * videlicet

Notes

1 JT: The small circular symbol above ostensa implies it should be deleted. The text ought to read sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus. See Philip Francis, A Poetical Translation of the Works of Horace: with the original text, and critical notes collected from his best Latin and French, 2 vols, 3rd edn (London, 1749), vol. 2, p. 453.
2 JRD: Read atente.
3 JRD: Corrected from suruato.
4 JRD: Final a has been created out of another letter. Cf. Matthew Paris Chronica maiora vol. II (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 16.ii, f. 202rb) where a final um has been erased to leave an incorrect notori. See manuscript details here: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/rb378fk5493 [accessed 16 May 2023].
5 JRD: Read legitimum. Cf. legitimo, line 25.
6 JRD Cf. Matthew Paris and Peter de Vinea, negociorum.
P[eter] de Vinea,
book 1 chapter 3/robust\[*]we were
[F]rederick, by the grace of God emperor of the Romans and perpetual Augustus, king of Jerusalem and Sicily, to prelates of churches, earls, barons, nobles and all throughout the kingdom of England to whom the present letters are shown, greeting and every good thing. Although we believe that popular rumour’s advance-reports and royal messengers’ truthful accounts have brought the justice of our cause to your notice: yet since, ‘What we hear / With weaker passion will affect the heart / Than when the faithful eye beholds the part,’1 we set before you the very pure and naked truth of the proceedings which the supreme pontiffs have up till now carried on against us. For the full and careful inspection of all the times and days appointed, let your affection for us allow us sufficient time on one day in which, if it be granted, your counsellors may diligently consider with due attention whether there be in our pontiffs a zeal for pontifical justice, and whether a just defence shall have been or be now denied to us who have been assailed by so many and great injuries; whether, indeed, the vicars of Christ have fulfilled the duties of Christ, and whether the successors of Peter imitate the example of their predecessor. Let them also consider according to what legality one should assess his /\ legal proceeding carried on against us; or by what name it ought to be designated, and whether the sentence which an incompetent judge proclaimed ought to be so called. For, although we very plainly acknowledge, as our Catholic faith enjoins, the full power in spiritual matters bestowed by the Lord to the bishops of the Holy Roman See; and that, to whatever small a degree he may be a sinner (which God forbid), ‘What he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;’2 yet, at no time do we read that it is granted to him by divine or human law that he is able to transfer dominions at will, or to make judgment concerning the temporal punishment of kings or princes of the earth by taking away their kingdoms. Although our consecration belongs to him by right and by the custom of our ancestors, yet deprivation or removal will not belong to him any more than to any prelate in kingdoms who consecrate and anoint their kings by custom. Even granting, without any prejudice to us, that he holds such power; yet can it be, from this plenitude of authority, that observing no legal process at all, he is able to censure anyone whom he declares to be subject to his jurisdiction? For he has recently proceeded against us, as it is said, not by the due process of accusation, since a suitable accuser did not appear and no application was produced; neither has he proceeded by public knowledge, since no legal denouncer appears; nor by means of inquisition, since it has not been preceded by ‘notorious suspicion’; and also since none of the inquisitors’ original documentation was produced against us, unless perhaps [secretly],3 since none of them was publicly cited at the inquisition by the judge in this affair. He declares to be notorious all the things that we clearly deny to be notorious, and which are not proved to be notorious by the legal number of witnesses. For in scorning the legal code in this way, any judge could on his own authority condemn any one by merely declaring a crime to be notorious. False witnesses stood up against us at the council, as it is said, but only a small number. Understandable hatred rendered one of them inimical to us, namely the bishop of Calvi, whose own brother and nephew had been lawfully condemned by us to be hanged for treason, and whose evidence ought rightfully to be rejected on that account. Others, for instance, coming from the furthest parts of Spain, namely the bishops of Tarragona and of Compostella, were ignorant of the affairs of Italy because of the distance of that native zone; and also being misguided by poisonous lies, they were made hostile to our righteous cause. Let us allow, moreover, that the prosecutor and judge were legally constituted, and that the witnesses held good: the third \party/ was nevertheless still wanting, and one ought only to be condemned according to justice if one is present or if one is absent through contumacy. For indeed, although we were cited in his public proclamation at Lyon, as we have heard, even though unofficially, * namely

Notes

1 JRD: See Philip Francis, A Poetical Translation of the Works of Horace: with the original text, and critical notes collected from his best Latin and French, 2 vols, 3rd edn (London, 1749), vol. 2, p. 453.
2 JRD: Mt 16:19.
3 JRD: Cf. Matthew Paris Chronica maiora vol. II (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 16.ii, f. 202rb) which has occulte for ecclesia. See manuscript details here: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/rb378fk5493 [accessed 16 May 2023].